Okay, I've had some notes for a while, but haven't gotten to revising and putting up something well written. Instead I'm just going to concede and put this up as is.
Locke's arguments:
First: There are unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property.
A quote Dr. Sandel displays:
"...every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has any right to but himself. The labor of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his."
John Locke
Questions I have:
How are any of the three concepts Locke lists unalienable? In nature, anyone can take another life, can subject another to slavery, and can force someone off the land they may claim. In order for any one to claim these rights, there must be an entity to enforce them. I am not sure this need be government, but I am not sure what other entity would do this.
Somewhat related to the first question is how much of the concept of property is strictly cultural? Was there any concept of ownership prior to domesticating farm animals (forgive me if my historical accuracy on that topic is not entirely accurate, I'm just thinking off the top of my head)?
Second idea: Consent
He discusses how anybody can be the judge and executor of the laws of nature as if those actions are justified, but those of the "aggressor" are not. I think this is a little problematic because who's to say the "aggressor" didn't already feel attacked by the other.
One girl brings up another point I've thought of when thinking of consent and the social contract. Especially at this point in time, where I don't think there is a whole lot of land left that isn't claimed by one government or another. How does one decide to leave the social contract?
Posts
